Have I been wrong in opposing guns?I have said that the owner of a gun was in danger because an intruder would

Question

have the benefit of surprise and would shoot the owner if he reached for a gun. None of the answers that I got on the internet gave me reason to think otherwise.
However, I was talking to a friend today, and he suggested there is a battle going on between rich and poor in the United States. He says that when a poor criminal enters the house of a richer person, the criminal is usually on drugs and is going to shoot the house owner even the house owner does not own a gun.
Now that makes more sense than any replies that I received on the internet. If you are going to be shot anyway, you might as well have a gun and maybe you will be lucky enough to get the drop on the intruder sometimes
I am disappointed that I didn't get a single sensible answer on Yahoo answers, and had to turn to someone else.
But I still need further convincing. Is this the way it is?Are most intruding criminals apt to be poor people hopped up on drugs
and determined to shoot you even if you do not have a gun?

Answer 1

yes but if there are no guns available for anyone the poor criminal is not likely to have a gun...people talk about black market and criminals having easy access to black markets...i live in a country where no gun possession is allowed, in here there are criminals and black markets i suppose, but deaths due to murder with guns are not very high.
I really think that if no one has easy access to guns, criminals wont be able to get one so easily and more if guns are not easily available, the one having one is the criminal, easy way of recognising them.

Answer 2

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. It is our right to dear arms. If I am stupid enough to reach for a gun, when one is being pointed at me, I deserve to be shot.

Having a gun, may make the intruder think twice before intruding. Not having a gun, gives him wide open range to do what he chooses.